Monday, October 5, 2009

Why Artists Need to Get Heretical

Leadership is a tricky thing. As the idea goes, not everyone can be a leader, yet everywhere we look there are signs that we need more leadership. In our companies, in government, at school, at the grassroots level. It's easy to believe that leadership is the answer to all our problems.

But it's not that simple. Leadership isn't about finding the 'right' person to follow, it's about figuring out what you want to change and then making that change happen. Maybe 1 person will follow you, maybe 50, but either way 'you' (more than ever before) CAN make a real difference without the 'right' pedigree, education, or bankroll.

How? By leading. You know, we think about leaders as 'heroes', the Mel Gibson kind where we direct a massive mob against the evil tyrants of the world (usually, in his case, they are British). In reality, leading isn't so cinematic (and it's a lot less bloody, at least at first). Most of the time it's more like getting 4 or 5 people (probably your friends) who really care about an idea to commit themselves towards making it happen. That's how lots of little movements got started, like Civil Rights and the British Invasion in the 60's, or the crazy idea that we could ALL use personal computers. (I personally disagree with the last one - I'm typing this up on my iPod and it's WAAAY easier...)

Leading, then, is more relational than mythical. Blogger/author/entrepreneur Seth Godin describes leadership in terms of helping a group of people recognize and achieve a common goal. I think he's right, and he's right about another thing, too: we all need to get heretical.

This shouldn't be too hard for us artists, since we're not really known for our stability in the first place. We just have to focus a bit more on channelling our zeal (AKA OCD syndrome) towards creating change. Change in our institutional environment, change in our career possibilities, change for future artists.

That sounds cliché, but really, isn't art the lense through which we view our history? And aren't the big changes in history the parts you remember? Let's go back a bit. Pythagoras was nuts. Really, completely nuts. He thought the planets' orbits were in-sync with some larger mathematical ratio, and that this ratio was relative to musical intervals. Whoa! Caravaggio, now there's a crazy who was also a true heretic. He even painted the Virgin Mary in innappropriate clothing (her ankles were showing). He wanted to paint a more realistic picture (no pun intended) of Biblical history. In the Late Renaissance, that's big. William Blake, you don't even have to even read any of his stuff to know how nuts he was. Have you ever seen any of his paintings?

OK, flash forward. How about John Lennon? That guy was so crazy ("Stop the Vietnam war!"...what a psycho) he inspired another crazy guy to kill him. Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, and Bill Gate have there own little "crazies only!" club going OK. And we can't forget Andy Warhol. The guy LIKED being known as a quirky, artistic maniac. Maybe it's because people loved him for it.

It has always been artists who have challenged the status quo. Why? Because new art necessarily must be different than the old. And that is hard for many people to accept. But, in the end, we remember those people now because what they did was revolutionary in some way, and more importantly, what they created had an impact on society. Those things are always more memorable to us than all that boring stuff that didn't change for decades (or sometimes centuries).

Try this: right now, start thinking about how we, as artists, can use the power of our art to foster change. Can we do it alone? I don't think so. We need to start by working towards building our network, what Godin would call a 'tribe', to start showing more of our peers that anti-establishment zealotry really isn't such a bad thing. In fact, being a heretic is probably the best way to get something done, because there's nothing more memorable than a crazy person who (if you listen) might actually make sense. And what is memorable, by default, gets noticed. Which means, if you take the opportunity to make a convincing point, somebody might remember it. If you're lucky, they may even decide to follow you. (Whoa, better know what you're talking about)

I'm pretty sure that we can find a few more crazies like us out there, after all, we are artists. And when you find them, try to listen to what they have to say....you mind even find yourself believing in them too. I'd write more, but I can't sit still any longer. Maybe I'll see you out there....

1 comment:

  1. a whirlwind of emotions happened in reading this. After mentioning Mel Gibson, I was turned off, but then you mentioned John Lennon, and who can't like that. Then saving the best for last you said "new art necessarily must be different than the old". Can't argue with that! In the end I agree with your statements, but my pro-new-music instrument makes me a leader of this view...even if I am a "follower" of your blog.

    ReplyDelete